Are we closing in on dark matter?

Dec 18, 2012
This composite image shows the galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, also known as the "bullet cluster", formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies -- the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang. The blue clumps show where most of the mass in the clusters is found, using a technique known as gravitational lensing. Most of the matter in the clusters (blue) is clearly separate from the normal matter (pink), giving direct evidence that nearly all of the matter in the clusters is dark. This result cannot be explained by modifying the laws of gravity. (Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/M.Markevitch et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.; Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.)

As the search for dark matter intensifies, the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago and the National Academy of Sciences organized a colloquium that brings together cosmologists, particle physicists and observational astrophysicists – three fields now united in the hunt to determine what is dark matter.

We believe it makes up about 23 percent of the mass- of the universe, even though we don't know what it is or have yet to directly see it (which is why it's called "dark"). So how can we detect it and when we do, what will it reveal about the universe?

In mid-October, more than 100 cosmologists, and astrophysicists gathered for a meeting called Dark Matter Universe: On the Threshold of Discovery at the ' Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. Their goal: to take stock of the latest theories and findings about dark matter, assess just how close we are to detecting it and spark cross-disciplinary discussions and collaborations aimed at resolving the dark matter puzzle. Following the meeting, The Kavli Foundation met with three leading participants and organizers of the meeting:

  • Michael S. Turner – Rauner Distinguished Service Professor and Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago.
  • Edward "Rocky" Kolb – Professor in the Department of at the University of Chicago, where he is also a member of the Institute and the Kavli Institute for .
  • Maria Spiropulu – Professor of Physics at California Institute of Technology who also works on experiments at the , and a former fellow at the Enrico Fermi Institute.
The following is an edited transcription of the discussion.

THE KAVLI FOUNDATION: This meeting brought together theoretical cosmologists, observational astrophysicists and experimental particle physicists. Why this mix of researchers and why now?

MICHAEL TURNER: Figuring out what is dark matter has become a problem that astrophysicists, cosmologists and particle physicists all want to solve, because dark matter is central to our understanding of the universe. We now have a compelling hypothesis, namely that dark matter is comprised of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle), particles that don't radiate light and interact rarely with ordinary matter. After decades of trying to figure out how to test the idea that dark matter is made up of WIMPs, we have three ways to test this hypothesis. Best of all, all three methods are closing in on being able to either confirm or falsify the WIMP. So the stars have truly aligned.

ROCKY KOLB: The title to this meeting is a great answer to your question. It's "On the Threshold of Discovery," and it could happen within the next one or two years. It's so important to get the different communities here – experimentalists working at colliders, people analyzing gamma ray data from space, and those involved in direct detection.

TKF: So dark matter is a mystery that everyone wants to solve.

TURNER: Ten years ago, I don't think you would've found astronomers, cosmologists, and particle physicists all agreeing that dark matter was really important. And now, they do. And all of them believe we can solve the problem soon. It's wonderful listening to particle physicists explain the evidence for dark matter, and vice versa –astronomers explaining WIMPs as dark matter. At this meeting nobody said, "Oh, I don't really believe in the evidence. Nor did anyone say, "Yikes – a new form of matter. That's crazy."

MARIA SPIROPULU: One important thing we've seen at this meeting is a crossing of professional boundaries that have separated researchers in many different fields in the past. These boundaries have been strict. Cosmologists, astrophysicists and particle physicists, however, have now really started talking to one another about dark matter. We're only beginning and our language – the way speak to each other – is not yet settled so that we completely understand each other; but we are on the threshold of discovering something very important for all of us. This is critical because cosmologists and particle physicists have talked for a long time about how the very big and very small might be linked. And while the particle physicists study the very small with colliders, cosmologists study the galaxies and billions and billions of stars that make up the large-scale structure we see in the universe.

KOLB: Ten years ago, it was "Call me maybe" and now it's …

TURNER: "Let's do lunch."

SPIROPULU: Yes, it's, "Let's do lunch and talk physics."

TURNER: I do want to make one point: the convergence of inner space and outer space really started in the 1980s. Back then it began with the origin of the baryon asymmetry, the monopole problem and dark matter to a lesser extent. Particle physicists agreed that dark matter was a real problem but said, "The solution could be astrophysics – faint stars, 'Jupiters', black holes and the like." It's been a long road to get to where we are now, namely where we all agree that the most compelling solution is particle dark matter. And even today, the different fields are still, in a sense, getting to know one another.

TKF: Let's cover a few basics. Why is the question of dark matter important?

KOLB: As cosmologists, one of our jobs is to understand what the universe is made of. To a good approximation, the galaxies and other structures we see in the universe are made predominantly of dark matter. We have concluded this from a tremendous body of evidence, and now we need to discover what exactly is dark matter. The excitement now is that we are closing in on an answer, and only once in the history of humans will someone discover it. There will be some student or postdoc or experimentalist someplace who is going to look in the next 10 years at their data, and of the seven or so billion people in the world that person will discover what galaxies are mostly made of. It's only going to happen once.

TURNER: The dark matter story started with fragmentary evidence discovered by Fritz Zwicky, a Swiss American. He found that there were not enough stars in the galaxy clusters he observed to hold them together. Slowly, more was understood and finally dark matter became a centerpiece of cosmology. And now, we have established that dark matter is about 23 percent of the universe; ordinary matter is only 4½ percent; and dark energy is that other 73 percent – which is an even bigger puzzle.

Nothing in cosmology makes sense without dark matter. We needed it to form galaxies, stars and other structures in the Universe. And so it's absolutely central to cosmology. We also know that none of the particles known to exist can be the dark matter particle. So it has to be a new particle of nature. Remarkably, our most conservative hypothesis right now is that the dark matter is a new form of matter – out there to be discovered and to teach us about particle physics.

SPIROPULU: I just want to say one thing. The phenomenon of dark matter was discovered from astronomical observations. We know that galaxies hang together and they don't fly apart, and it's the same with clusters of galaxies. So we know that we have structure in the universe. Whatever it is that keeps it there, in whatever form it is, we call that dark matter. This is the way I teach it to undergraduates. It's a fantastical story. It's still a mystery and so it's "dark," but the universe and its structures – galaxies and everything else we observe in the macroscopic world – are being held together because of it.

TKF: Dark matter is often described in the media as something that is inferred because of its gravitational effects on ordinary matter. But the case for dark matter is much more expansive than that, as astrophysicist Jeremiah [Jerry] Ostriker from Princeton University said at this meeting.

TURNER: Absolutely. Dark matter is absolutely central to cosmology and the evidence for it comes from many different measurements: the amount of deuterium produced in the big bang, the cosmic microwave background, the formation of structure in the Universe, galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, and on and on. Jerry said that as far as he is concerned, the dark matter problem has been solved. And that's because this idea that dark matter is just a swarm of particles that are very shy, that rarely interact with ordinary matter and then only weakly, works perfectly. And at the end of his talk, he said, as a kind of footnote: "By the way, I would be interested in knowing what the dark matter is." This is a testimony to how central dark matter is to cosmology and culturally to how particle physicists and astrophysicists look at dark matter differently. Dr. Gross, the particle physicist, wanted to know what dark matter is made of.

TKF: So for Dr. Ostriker, knowing exactly what dark matter is is less important than the work done already – measuring its gravitational influence on ordinary matter, estimating how much of the universe is made from it, and affirming that what we do know about it fits with the standard model of cosmology.

TURNER: That was Jerry's point, yes. There is five times more dark matter than ordinary matter, and its existence allows us to understand the history of the universe beginning from a formless particle soup until where we are today. If you said, "You no longer have dark matter," our current cosmological model would collapse. We would be back to square one.

TKF: Dr. Ostriker also argued that we should be open to dark matter being a variety of fundamental particles and not only WIMPs. Other possibilities could be neutrinos and axions.

TURNER: Because he doesn't care what it is. They all work equally well. The flip side is that cosmology tells us little about dark matter except it is cold.

TKF: Do they all work equally well for each of you?

KOLB: Well, for cold dark matter – which is made from particles that move slowly compared with the speed of light, and is the kind needed for forming galaxies and galaxy clusters – they all work equally well. The thing about the WIMP, as opposed to some of these other candidate particles, is that it's a very compelling possibility we can test right now. So we don't have to wait for the next 30 years or the next century, as we might if we were trying to detect another type of hypothesized particle. We don't have to build an accelerator larger than LHC.

This is one of the most detailed maps of dark matter in our universe ever created. The location of the dark matter (tinted blue) was inferred through observations of magnified and distorted distant galaxies seen in this picture. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA/Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, University of Basque Country/JHU)

It's a magical moment when astronomers, astrophysicists, string theorists, particle experimentalists and cosmologists get together because they all have a common purpose. There is a common problem that excites them.

TKF: What makes you most optimistic that we're on the threshold of discovery?

KOLB: First of all, the hypothesis that dark matter is made up of WIMPs – and that it was produced by normal particles, say quarks, in the early universe – is an amazing achievement all by itself. Independent of a lot of the details of what goes on there and exactly how that happens, we expect that you should be able to reverse things and produce WIMPs in particle accelerators. We also expect they should be annihilating today in the galaxy, which we should be able to detect indirectly. Now, it's another issue who will be the first to find WIMPs. It's possible that it will be another 30 years before we do that, but we should be able to make a detection – whether it's direct or indirect.

SPIROPULU: With the Large Hadron Collider, and before that the Tevatron collider, we have been chasing and targeting the dark matter candidate. For us, the optimism is because the LHC is working and we're collecting a lot of data. In the standard model of particle physics, when we enlarge it to help explain how the universe began and evolved, we have a story that is a mathematical story. It's very good at describing how we can have dark matter. And if the mathematics accurately describes reality, then the LHC is now achieving the energies that are needed to produce dark matter particles.

Getting to these high energies is critical, and we are even going to higher energies. When we were building the standard model of particle physics, we kept saying that the next particle discovery that we predicted was "right around the corner." In other words, we were not, and we are not, flying in the dark. We are guided by a huge amount of data and knowledge, and while you might think there are infinite possibilities of what can happen, the data actually points you to something that is more probable. For example, we have found the Higgs-like particle, but that was predicted. So the next big step for this edifice of knowledge is to find something that will look like supersymmetry – a hypothesis that, if true, offers a perfect candidate for dark matter. We call it a miracle, because the mathematics works. But the way nature works, in the end, is what you see in the data. So if we find it, there is no miracle.

TURNER: These dark matter particles, or WIMPs, don't interact with ordinary matter often. It's taken 25 years to improve the sensitivity of our detectors by a factor of a million, and now they have a good shot at detecting the dark matter particles. Because of the technological developments, we think we are on the cusp of a direct detection.

Likewise for indirect detection. We now have instruments like the Fermi satellite (the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope) and the IceCube detector (the IceCube Neutrino Observatory at the South Pole) that can detect the ordinary particles (positrons, gamma rays or neutrinos) that are produced when dark matter particles annihilate, indirectly allowing dark matter to be detected. IceCube is big enough to detect neutrinos that are produced by dark matter annihilations in the sun.

TKF: A few people over the past two days have said the dark matter particle might not be detectable.

TURNER: For many of us, for 20 to 30 years, this idea that dark matter is part of a unified theory has been our Holy Grail and has led to the WIMP hypothesis and the belief that the dark matter particle is detectable. But there's a new generation of physicists that is saying, "Well, there's an alternative view. Dark matter is actually just the tip of an iceberg of another world that is unrelated to our world. And I cannot even tell you about that world. There are no rules for that other world, at least that we know of yet." Sadly, this point of view could be correct and might mean the solution to the dark matter problem is still very far away. That is what led Jerry to say that discovering what dark matter actually is could be 100 years away.

TKF: Michael Witherell, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, also said that nature doesn't guarantee an observation.

TURNER: Also true. But we have the WIMP hypothesis and it is falsifiable. And there's a good chance it's true. A "good chance" in this business means 10 percent or 20 percent. But when you're trying to solve a problem of this magnitude, if you have a 10-20 percent chance, I say let's double down on that.

TKF: When do you predict we'll detect WIMPs?

KOLB: It's easy to say, "A decade." LHC is turning on now. It'll be another year or so before they are at full energy, and they may run a couple of years to accumulate data. Meanwhile, the Fermi satellite is in space making observations. And then we have experiments underground: a detection may come with Xenon100, one dark matter experiment now underway in central Italy, or some successor to Xenon100.

TKF: And programs like LUX, the Large Underground Xenon dark matter experiment in South Dakota, are just coming online.

KOLB: In ten years, if there is no indication of supersymmetry or a WIMP – either from direct detection or indirect detection searches – then there is going to be a sea change. Now, there is not going to be one experiment announcement that says, "OK, let's look at something else." But if ten years from now there is no evidence, then we are going to other possibilities. You could not have said that ten years ago, or even five years ago. Today, I think you can say that.

TKF: Because we have so much work behind us and have already eliminated numerous possibilities.

KOLB: As in Ghostbusters, we have the tools. We have the talent.

SPIROPULU: I think it's fair to say the discovery is "around the corner." If we continue with exclusions, then we have to come up with better ideas. We are doing all this because we want to characterize dark matter. We are not just saying, "It is dark matter." We don't want to just say, "The universe is." We want to know exactly what it is made of. We want to know the dynamics and what it involves. A lot of work is ahead of us. Somebody said that it's not going to be as easy as finding the Higgs. Well, finding the Higgs was extremely nontrivial. Of course, once we find it, it goes in the pool of knowledge and then you say, "Well, it was easy."

TKF: Painting a picture for the general public about how incredible it would be to discover a WIMP is challenging. How do you convey just how sensitive this measurement would be?

TURNER: I keep saying these particles are very shy. Here's one way to think about this: if you had 100 kilograms of material, one of these shy particles – one of these WIMPS – would interact with that 100 kg once in a year or even less often. So you really have to build very sensitive detectors. Because of the cosmic rays and other particles that light up your detector and obscure the WIMP signal you're looking for, you have to put WIMP detectors underground. And even underground you still get natural radioactivity clouding your signal, so you have to discriminate against that as well.

Now, we also expect there's a seasonal modulation in the dark matter signal as the Earth orbits the sun through the sea of dark matter particles that permeate space. The modulation signal is expected to be only a few percent of the rare, dark-matter signal I talked about a minute ago. We do have the equipment in place to make these detections, but we just need Nature to cooperate.

KOLB: It's a fantastical story. One hundred years ago, if I told you that we are surrounded by these invisible particles and they're passing through us – you don't feel them yet they form the entire structure of the universe – you would have locked me up.

TKF: Do any of you expect that learning about dark matter will help us also learn about the other big mystery in cosmology – dark energy?

KOLB: Possibly nothing. It depends on what the answer will be. It is possible it won't shed any light on the nature of dark energy.

TURNER: There are two views. One is a conservative view, which is that dark matter is just made up of particles that don't give off light. It's just particles that happened to be more important than the stuff that we are made out of, which we only discovered in the past 70 years. And dark energy is a new problem that is unrelated.

TKF: And the only thing they share at this point is being unknown?

TURNER: That's right. The conservative point of view is that dark energy is unrelated to dark matter. Recall, dark energy is the stuff that is causing the universe to speed up. This is the simple view where we are solving problems one at a time.

A more radical view which we heard about at this meeting from Erik Verlinde (from the University of Amsterdam) is, "You know, guess what? Don't you guys get it? The two of them are related. It has nothing to do with particles. It's something much, much bigger. The two are related and are pointing to a much richer explanation. You are trying to explain things in a simple-minded way: dark matter particles and dark energy. Just like Ptolemy's epicycles (the epicycles of Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria, Egypt under Roman rule, is a false construction of an Earth-centered universe, specifically describing the observed retrograde motion of planets), a desperate attempt to make a wrong hypothesis work.

And so those are the two extremes. One is that we are just about to solve dark matter and then we will go on to dark energy and they're probably not related; the other is that together, they make this big flashing sign: You guys really need to sit down and reconsider the whole framework.

SPIROPULU: I think it's worth noting that the dark sector (i.e. dark matter and dark energy) has to do with gravity. They are linked via gravity. Gravity is a force that in particle physics we have not been able to put together with the rest of the forces. Somehow, if you could stand outside the universe – that's an absurd statement, of course – but stand outside it and see how everything relates, you could say something about the dark sector and gravity.

TURNER: You're right that gravity could be the connector, because in cosmology and astrophysics gravity is the most important force. In particle physics, it's the least important force. Consequently particle physicists are just getting around to worrying about it, and in cosmology we mostly worry about gravity. And so now, we have come together because of a common interest in gravity – gravity revealed to us through dark matter and dark energy.

SPIROPULU: Here we are, with dark matter between us. It's a beautiful story of how we are trying to solve the problems, the challenges of characterizing our physical world.

KOLB: Dark matter holds together the galaxies. It holds together and particle physicists.

TURNER: We know that Einstein didn't get the last word on gravity, because his theory doesn't have quantum mechanics in it. And so any problem that involves gravity, you are thinking, nervously and excitedly, that this could be the clue to the grander theory of gravity.

KOLB: I don't think the general public appreciates that we would love to find something wrong with what we think about the universe, about the laws of nature. And that's because it points the way toward new discoveries. I don't think most people work that way, thinking that, "Boy, I would love to be shown that I'm wrong about something that I really thought was true for 30 years or 100 years."

TURNER: We want new puzzles.

SPIROPULU: Always. And I have to say that in particle physics, there is a list of experiments and projects that have been built in the past 30 years that did not find what they were built for. None. They found other things, other important things. It's incredible. One example of this is the Hubble Space Telescope, which has revealed more about the universe than we ever could have imagined when it was conceived. The series of deep field images of the very distant universe, which has given us glimpses of the earliest galaxies, is just one example of this. So, when you write a proposal for something and you say what you are building it for, and you get the money and you go and build it and you find something completely unexpected – Wow. Our physical world is surprising. And it's very surprising that we can get it, even at the level we do. Or that we can do the experiments that we do.

TURNER: I think the universe is vast. It's often beyond the reach of our instruments and our minds, but we are at a point in time here where we really think we understand it and that we can identify what dark matter is. We have an accounting of the universe and a compelling hypothesis for dark matter. It is not unexpected that the younger generation of scientists wants a more radical solution to dark matter. The older generation developed the WIMP hypothesis, and this is our solution and we want to see it come true. The younger generation wants the excitement of solving a problem.

TKF: Would any of you trade this point in time with another in the history of physics?

KOLB: No, no. For , I think this is the time. I can't see everything converging at another time like it is now.

TURNER: This is the time to be a dark cosmologist.

Explore further: A two-stage trap for single protons leads to measurement of their magnetic properties

Related Stories

Dark matter could provide heat for starless planets

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a recent paper posted at arXiv.org and submitted to Astrophysical Journal, Dan Hooper and Jason Steffen, physicists at Fermilab in Illinois, present the theory that cold and dark planet ...

Still in the dark about dark matter

Dec 06, 2011

Dark matter, the mysterious stuff thought to make up about 80 percent of matter in the universe, has become even more inscrutable.

Exploring the secrets of dark matter

Feb 18, 2010

Even the biggest Star Trek fan would probably have trouble understanding the technical details of the research done by Queen's University Particle Astrophysics Professor Wolfgang Rau of Kingston, Canada.

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

Jul 31, 2014

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

User comments : 162

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

baudrunner
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2012
It would surely be a bummer for some if it were discovered that there really is no dark matter and those blue "clouds" around the red matter are really the result of all those light rays geting scattered around in the Oort cloud, which acts as a flawed medium for the passage of light. Photographers know what I'm talking about. They know a bad lens when they see their results.
flashgordon
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2012
The header image is of the magnetic fields generated by Sagittarious A, our central galactic core black hole, not some galactic cluster.
Ober
1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
I suspect Erik Verlinde is on the mark.

Again I suggest black holes, and the holographic principle.
Before some mindless zombie gives me a 1 rating, go and read about the holographic principle. It's not crank science!!!!
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (23) Dec 18, 2012
Supersymmetry has been all but dispensed with due to results in the high energy colliders. WIMPS were conceived as supersymmetry particles.

Dark matter remains a kludge. There it's no evidence that it exists. All that we call dark matter is gravitational anomalies.

It is not wise to pose a question in a manner which presupposes the answer. By presupposing the answers, we narrow our view to what we expect while what we expect is built on nothing.

Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2012
Way to completely miss the point there baudrunner.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2012
The header image is of the magnetic fields generated by Sagittarious A, our central galactic core black hole, not some galactic cluster.


Wrong, look closer. Try looking up `bullet cluster`.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2012
Supersymmetry has been all but dispensed with due to results in the high energy colliders.


Well, not dispensed with, rather severely constrained. Regardless, a very exciting field! There will be many bets paid in fairly short order should WIMPS be found to be the incorrect answer.

Dark matter remains a kludge. There it's no evidence that it exists. All that we call dark matter is gravitational anomalies.


Well, yes to a point, same as all we have to evidence black holes is the material we see spinning around them. These are pretty big "anomalies" dogbert, and there are a multitude of them.

Still, an incredibly exciting time to be a physicist.
jsdarkdestruction
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2012
dogbert, nonsense. lhc is going to undergo a upgrade soon to increase its strength to try to find dark matter and supersymetrical particles(among other things im sure). susy isnt dead, just the range we've been able to search so far.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2012
Dark matter consist of cold dark matter, which has a properties of "field" and so-called hot dark matter, composed of tiny particles. IMO the cold dark matter is formed with shielding of gravitational shielding of massive bodies with nearby massive bodies, this is why its arranged into lines. It consists of elevated concentration of gravitational waves and when this concentration exceeds certain critical density, it condenses into neutrinos, which are lightweight particles of antimatter. The elevated concentration of neutrinos attracts another massive particles, both positrons, both particles of normal matter. The behavior of neutrinos is tricky in the point, their negative curvature of space at their core is nearly balanced with positive curvature of space at their surface. So that neutrinos deform the space slightly even when their concentration is high and they do exhibit the inertial effects rather than gravitational ones.
El_Nose
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2012
@baud

the blue clouds are not really blue -- they have enhanced the photo to show where the dark matter is. Remember its Dark because it does not interact with anything, much less the EM spectrum.

Those are areas of high mass, that seem to be completely neutral and not emit heat, or reflect light. -- also known as dark matter
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (21) Dec 18, 2012
So that neutrinos deform the space slightly even when their concentration is high and they do exhibit the inertial effects rather than gravitational ones.


Is that what is pushing the washing machine? Is that what is causing the flat water waves? Hmmm, yes, I suppose that makes sense looked at longitudinally.
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
It would surely be a bummer for some if it were discovered that there really is no dark matter and those blue "clouds" around the red matter are really the result of all those light rays geting scattered around in the Oort cloud, which acts as a flawed medium for the passage of light. Photographers know what I'm talking about. They know a bad lens when they see their results.

You have to understand a little what your talking about to make a valid point. Suffice it to say that your suggestion of Oort cloud anomalies causing this is trivially disprovable. To understand that you would need a huge amount more knowledge than you currently possess, so its worthless trying to explain it to you. I know I sound arrogant and I am sorry for that, but it doesn't make what I say any less true.
Code_Warrior
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2012
I am rooting for the Dark Matter == WIMP hypotheses to be disproven and leave them all scratching their heads. I'd love to see the LHC produce some pesky results that the make the Higgs discovery sufficiently different than predicted that the standard model falls apart. I'd love to see some discovery that kills string theory and buries it forever (I don't know why I want this, I just do). I would love the universe to reveal some aspect that effectively gives us all the big middle finger and tell us that we are not yet worthy to know the secrets. Physics is getting boring - too much consensus - I want chaos to reign. Out with the old guard and in with the new blood and new and crazy ideas. That way, things would get interesting again. After all, we can still use the models for our everyday work, they do pretty well for that, nothing wasted. Where is today's crazy haired Einstein? The only crazy haired guy around is that Greek dude that thinks everything is proof of aliens.
guillaume_pussetto
4.4 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2012
"The blue clumps show where most of the mass in the clusters is found, using a technique known as gravitational lensing. Most of the matter in the clusters (blue) is clearly separate from the normal matter (pink), giving direct evidence that nearly all of the matter in the clusters is dark. "
I guess it should be more precise to say "Most of the DARK matter in the clusters (blue) is clearly separate from the normal matter (pink),"

Tri-ring
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2012
How about if there is a particle which only obtains two dimensions instead of three?
I was hypothesizing about extra dimensions and if gravity was at play as a tensor force to maintain the extra dimensions collapsed. If so I expanded if dimensions can be collapsed could there be particles that interact with only two instead of three dimensions.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (23) Dec 18, 2012
This result cannot be explained by modifying the laws of gravity.


They got that right, however being that what is in the image is almost entirely plasma, the proper application of EM theory (in re to plasma) can explain what they are looking at without inventing stuff. Occam's Razor would agree with this assessment.

This is one of the most detailed maps of dark matter in our universe ever created. The location of the dark matter (tinted blue) was inferred through observations of magnified and distorted distant galaxies seen in this picture.


Inferred? Give an astrophysicist a box of crayolas and watch science happen.

It's a magical moment when astronomers, astrophysicists, string theorists, particle experimentalists and cosmologists get together


A magical metaphysical moment, replete with fantasy and crayons. Can I have my tax dollars back please, I prefer real science to fantasyland physics.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2012
I am rooting for the Dark Matter == WIMP hypotheses to be disproven and leave them all scratching their heads
We need the WIMPS for anything. The WIMPS are predictions of SUSY theory, which is systematically disproved with latest LHC experiments. In addition, I do consider the neutrinos as a supersymmetric particles of photons, so I really don't understand, why they cannot fit the problems of both dark matter, both missing antimatter, both WIMPs, both SUSY. IMO the physicists are victims of their own overemployments, which forces them to invent new and new particles and theories - even at the moment, when single type would solve all problems. During time the physicists proposed dozens of theoretical models: scalar field, quintessence, mirror matter, axions, dilatons, inflatons, heavy photons, fat strings, sterile neutrinos, chameleon particles, dark fluid and dark baryons, fotinos, gravitinos and WIMPs, SIMPs, MACHOs, RAMBOs, DAEMONs and micro-black holes... Is it normal?
yash17
1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2012
"So how can we detect it and when we do, what will it reveal about the universe?"

I expect dark matter in cosmos is small particles of hot compressed atom structure matters fleeting with extremely high speed. Like black hole, it doesn't emit light. It play ultimately significant role to the observation we get of low redshift sky objects in mighty cosmos.
At the time we can detect it, there will be significant improvement or change on current most trusted theory.
Kron
1 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
Is it possible that the medium we view as space is actually a dense particle environment and that the visible matter we see are the regions of the environment where these particles are lit up by transient energy?

Let's use the Earth passing through space for an example. What if the visible Earth is transient energy coupling with the particle environment? What if the travel of the Earth through space is actually travel of energy through a particle field? The particles in the future are awaiting the transient energy of the present, so as the present passes cold dark un-energized particles are left behind in the past as the transient energy moves toward the future.

See where I'm going with this?

Could the future be occupied by non-energized cold massive particles? As energy arrives into the future these cold dark unenergized massive particles light up and become what we call visible matter. And as the energy departs these particles it again leaves them massive cold dark and unenergized
Kron
1 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2012
The particles when energized become more massive, when energy passes them they lose the extra mass they've gained from the transient energy.

The cold dark massive particles still interact gravitationally (the particles have mass) so the density of the particles would be highest around the most massive of objects. Since the transient energy increases the mass of the cold dark massive particles during the coupling period (the present), the cold dark massive particle environment would have the highest densities around regions of space surrounding visible matter. So really massive objects (such as galaxies) would be surrounded by a really dense cold dark massive particle environment. The regions furthest from visible matter would have the lowest density cold massive particle environment.
yash17
1 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
"Are we closing in on dark matter?"

If so, this is a countdown of us together leaving "The Big Bang theory."

Since 1920 or since 1933, they never expected dark matter at all. The explanation of space expansion was just more than enough toward redshift sky objects.
Kron
1 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2012
But the highest mass regions are present in the centres of galaxies (ie galactic supermassive black-holes). I tried illustrating the model from multiple angles in order to be clear. The dark cold massive particles are not only found surrounding visible matter, but are also the underlying component of the visible matter itself. The difference being that visible matter is ENERGIZED particles, while the regions surrounding visible matter are NOT ENERGIZED.

So the difference between the particle environment within the galaxy and the particle environment surrounding the galaxy, is that the former are energized-hot-visible-massive-particles, while the latter are unenergized-cold-dark-massive-particles.
vacuum-mechanics
1.3 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2012
TURNER:… Nothing in cosmology makes sense without dark matter. We needed it to form galaxies, stars and other structures in the Universe. And so it's absolutely central to cosmology. We also know that none of the particles known to exist can be the dark matter particle. So it has to be a new particle of nature. Remarkably, our most conservative hypothesis right now is that the dark matter is a new form of matter…

Indeed it is the manifest of vacuum medium's property (dark energy), a new kind of unconventional matter which is easy to prove its existence by using simple scientific experiment…
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en
blengi
1 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2012
lol, my personal computer generated dark matter delusion/prediction without elaboration and purposely including a little contextual obsfuscation is:

https://lh5.googl...tuff.jpg

ps hmm, 3 light blue lines...
TimESimmons
1.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2012
Are we closing in on dark matter?

No you're not.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
brt
2 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2012
I would say it is very likely that dark matter can't be explained by just a single phenomenon. It's more likely that the dark matter phenomenon that we observe is the result of a combination of WIMPS, dark astronomical bodies, and maybe even a misunderstanding of how galaxies are formed.
theon
1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2012
Sadly, none of the commenters seems to realize that properties of the Galaxy have long ruled out the WIMP hypothesis. Also finding a galaxy at redshift 11 really creates a problem for the reionization hypothesis. The arguments to rule out Machos in the Galaxy are not conclusive, and they should still form its dark matter, and constitute the missing baryons. On bigger scales the best bet is neutrinos, with masses in the eV range. This case is not ruled out in absence of the WIMP hypothesis. With it, structure formation should start out nonlinear. By the way, dark matter was proposed by Jacobus Kapteyn in 1922 and worked on by Jan Oort in 1932, both for the Galaxy. In 1933 came Zwicky for clusters. As mentioned above, he was describing non-baryonic dark matter.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
So how can we detect it and when we do, what will it reveal about the universe?

A bit of a conundrum here:
the picture clearly depicts dark matter as being the blue stuff - so how was that detected if it is actually supposed to be undetectable?

Totally off-topic : I like how the enlarged picture seems to show the red/pink normal matter form a ghostly skeleton hand reaching out to grab the blue light on the left. Maybe it's the force of dark energy at work, i.e. the forces of darkness?
lengould100
1 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2012
So it comes down to a single issue really. Can any modification of einstein's gravity equations incorporate both a) our observations of star motions in galaxies and galaxy motions in clusters AND b) our observations of the effects of nearer galaxy clusters on the light from distant galaxies. (gravitational lensing) ?? It appears that all attendees at this conference are agreed that the answer is "NO", and unfortunately my depth in the topic is not sufficient to argue, BUT I'm still waiting for someone with such depth to explain to me why a careful and subtle "proportional reduction at distance" of the effect of gravity doesn't potentially resolve everything discussed here, AS WELL AS the problem of accelerating expansion of the universe (perhaps the effect of gravity goes negative at sufficient distance?).

John Moffat, (professor physics UofT) in his book Reinventing Gravity, claimed to have accomplished a) and b). http://en.wikiped...ysicist)
dschlink
5 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2012
By presupposing the answers, we narrow our view to what we ...


can develop a test for and determine if that answer is correct. If not, we try something else.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2012
Can any modification of Einstein's gravity equations incorporate both a) our observations of star motions in galaxies and galaxy motions in clusters AND b) our observations of the effects of nearer galaxy clusters on the light from distant galaxies. (gravitational lensing)
IMO yes, but the dark matter manifests itself with another effects, which are higher-dimensional and difficult to explain with any modification of field equations (search for "Bullet cluster", for example). You would need to introduce way more extradimensions and/or parameters, than the contemporary math can handle. The point is, the field curvature behaves like trap for material particles, so that the dark matter clouds are formed with mixture of axions, low and high energy neutrinos, of course some positrons or even atom nuclei. In addition, none of these theories can explain so-called dark galaxies, i.e. the invisible clusters or dark matter without any visible matter in it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2012
In AWT the dark matter can form even at the free space with shielding of gravitational shielding with neighboring massive objects from literally "nothing" and in this case the general relativity has nothing to say about it. Because it's the very first step of formation of large galaxies, the general relativity based models lack the important causality aspect: the dark matter around massive objects isn't byproduct of these objects, but these objects are often result of this dark matter instead.
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2012
the picture clearly depicts dark matter as being the blue stuff - so how was that detected if it is actually supposed to be undetectable
Neither Milka cow is really violet. Such a color is product of computer software, which has been used for determination of dark matter density. This density is usually calculated with using of weak gravitational lensing effects and the blue color serves only for its visualization.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
the picture clearly depicts dark matter as being the blue stuff - so how was that detected if it is actually supposed to be undetectable
Neither Milka cow is really violet. Such a color is product of computer software, which has been used for determination of dark matter density. This density is usually calculated with using of weak gravitational lensing effects and the blue color serves only for its visualization.


Einstein's 1st Law of Transubstantiation does not apply to blue software,,, I think maybe you meant the ultraviolet lensing of the computer screen.

Zeph, you really should check for the obvious misspeaks before posting, you might inadvertently cause someone to think you don't know what you're talking about.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2012
the blue clouds are not really blue -- they have enhanced the photo to show where the dark matter is. Remember its Dark because it does not interact with anything, much less the EM spectrum.

@El_Nose: First, I understand that about the photo enhancement. That notwithstanding, they are enhancing an effect nonetheless. Secondly, dark matter, according to theory, is affected by gravity, and is responsible for creating its own gravity. it would not be detectable if it didn't react with anything.
yash17
1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2012
Yes, I like this,

"I would say it is very likely that dark matter can't be explained by just a single phenomenon. It's more likely that the dark matter phenomenon that we observe is the result of a combination of WIMPS, dark astronomical bodies, and maybe even a misunderstanding of how galaxies are formed."

To the above, I just want to add this:

My expectation; dark matter is small particle of hot compressed atom structure matters.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2012
you really should check for the obvious misspeaks before posting, you might inadvertently cause someone to think you don't know what you're talking about
I'm aware of it - on the other hand it could filter out just the people, who are lazy to think independently and who are using to judge the new ideas by authority of authors and another formal attributes. I'm not here for spreading of new religion, but for introduction of new way of thinking about observable reality. What I really don't want is to collect another bunch of idiots, who would adore the aether model in the same way, like Einstein's relativity and similar stuff before it.
aroc91
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2012
yash17:

To the above, I just want to add this:

My expectation; dark matter is small particle of hot compressed atom structure matters.


You are aware this means absolutely nothing, right? That's one of the vaguest things I've read on here. It's like you just put together random science terms and hoped that it made something coherent.
yash17
1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2012
"You are aware this means absolutely nothing, right? That's one of the vaguest things I've read on here. It's like you just put together random science terms and hoped that it made something coherent."

It is not as your thought. But you are free to get yours.

Am I not allowed to agree with friend thought, while at the same time I just need to add little of that with my idea? Because to explain all, that will be relatively a long talk.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
so I really don't understand,


This is the first thing you've said in many posts, ValeriaT, that I agree with 100%.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2012
Am I not allowed to agree with friend thought, while at the same time I just need to add little of that with my idea? Because to explain all, that will be relatively a long talk.


An imaginary friend? A pretend friend? Or are you agreeing with a reflection in the mirror? It would be nice if you would deign to tell us what the reflected photons of a troll do when longitudinally absorbed into a flat water wave surface.

A Zephyr by any other name is still a troll. Talking to yourself only makes it apparent.
Kron
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2012
tell us what the reflected photons of a troll do when longitudinally absorbed into a flat water wave surface

Nothing you anti-bright little Star. Absorbed photons don't reflect, they add to atomic energy. The photons reflected off an undulating surface will have their reflective angle changing with time, dependent on the tangent angle of the water surface at the point and moment of interaction. The image produced would be a distortion of the trolls true appearance. Sort of as your mind is unable to correctly interpret the message of the westerly breeze. The message is coherent and unidirectional, but as it hits you, your shaky brain distorts it, leaving it incomprehensible to you. The problem with language is synchronicity. If you're not operating on the same wavelength the message sent is not the message received. So maybe ridicule is not the way to go, as it just may be that that in actuality, you are the ridiculous one.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2012
Nothing you anti-bright little Star. Absorbed photons don't reflect, they add to atomic energy. The photons reflected off an undulating surface will have their reflective angle changing with time, dependent on the tangent angle of the water surface at the point and moment of interaction. The image produced would be a distortion of the trolls true appearance. Sort of as your mind is unable to correctly interpret the message of the westerly breeze. The message is coherent and unidirectional, but as it hits you, your shaky brain distorts it, leaving it incomprehensible to you. The problem with language is synchronicity. If you're not operating on the same wavelength the message sent is not the message received. So maybe ridicule is not the way to go, as it just may be that that in actuality, you are the ridiculous one.


Well then,,, by all means, let's hop on the transverse wave of non moving electrons with their superluminal flat vortex. I'm interested.

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012

Well then,,, by all means, let's hop on the transverse wave of non moving electrons with their superluminal flat vortex. I'm interested.



Hi Q-Star. You are getting ridiculously 'personal' and 'arrogant' again. If you don't actually bother to try and understand what others (Zephir, Kron etc) are actually saying (which you apparently don't), then don't bother answering at all. Otherwise it comes across as just your defensive babbling and distraction in order to avoid actually understanding/answering the points/descriptions about others' theories. Do better. Cheers!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2012
You are getting ridiculously 'personal' and 'arrogant' again
I'd rather say, he's just a plain troll, who even cannot distinguish between individual posters here...;-) The incoherent babbling in which he attempts to spoof the things, which he cannot understand is the natural defensive stance for many primitives on the web. Just ignore him for future - the attention is what feeds such a trolls.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2012
Hi Q-Star. You are getting ridiculously 'personal' and 'arrogant' again. If you don't actually bother to try and understand what others (Zephir, Kron etc) are actually saying (which you apparently don't), then don't bother answering at all. Otherwise it comes across as just your defensive babbling and distraction in order to avoid actually understanding/answering the points/descriptions about others' theories. Do better. Cheers!


Cheery to ya too. Why can't I participate with my own ideas and theories? If you don't believe a non moving electron can emit energy in the form of a longitudinal flat water wave, then you are welcome to present an alternate theory. I think though, that you are overlooking the observation of the vacuum filled aether, which by the way, can be modeled quite intuitively by the transverse waves of luminous water moving with superduperluminary velocities
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
Hi Q-Star. Seriously, mate, you just confirmed for everyone that you don't understand what others theories are about, and just mocking the terminology is infantile at best and dishonest evasion at worst. If you had been around when the string theorists and even Einstein were coining new terminology to explain new perspectives, you would probably have trolled them too. Stop it. Either take the trouble to really understand or just leave it alone. Your silliness makes all serious scientists shudder with embarrassment whenever you pretend to speak for us while acting the personal/evasive troll. Do better or you are not speaking for science. Period. Stay safe and don't overdo it with the 'season's celebration tipples', Q-Star, everyone!
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
I'd rather say, he's just a plain troll, who even cannot distinguish between individual posters here...;-)


Are ya denying that you are Zephyr? Or are ya denying that Yash17 is Zephyr? Yes, it is a trick question. One that I know you CAN'T answer. Do ya suppose that ya might be smart enough to attempt answer? (Yeah, that is a trick question too.)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
I'd rather say, he's just a plain troll, who even cannot distinguish between individual posters here...;-)


Are ya denying that you are Zephyr? Or are ya denying that Yash17 is Zephyr? Yes, it is a trick question. One that I know you CAN'T answer. Do ya suppose that ya might be smart enough to attempt answer? (Yeah, that is a trick question too.)


Your continued preoccupation and spending time and energy speculating about 'the messengers' (whoever they may be) instead of spending that same time and energy on trying to really understand 'the messages' (whatever they may be) is really getting tiresome to watch, Q-Star. Please try to correct that unscientific attitude when it comes to discussing scientific theories (whatever their provenance/unfamiliarity to you). If you are not interested in really understanding others' theories, then STFU and let the conversation go between those who are trying to understand.

Enjoy the holidays, Q-Star, everyone!
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2012
If you had been around when the string theorists and even Einstein were coining new terminology to explain new perspectives, you would probably have trolled them too.


I am of the same generation of string theorists,,,, I admire them greatly,,, mostly for the effort they exerted prior to becoming string theorists. They are making progress.

Stop it.


That got ya just the opposite of what ya wanted. Very poor choice of words.

Do better or you are not speaking for science. Period.


I'm speaking only for myself. If I were trying to speak for "science" I would be the very first to tell ya that "science can find much better speakers than me". Period back to ya.

Stay safe and don't overdo it with the 'season's celebration tipples', Q-Star


I'm a teetotaler sort, I do not indulge, but thanks anyway, best wishes to ya too.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
I am of the same generation of string theorists,,,, I admire them greatly,,, mostly for the effort they exerted prior to becoming string theorists. They are making progress.

That got ya just the opposite of what ya wanted. Very poor choice of words.

I'm speaking only for myself. If I were trying to speak for "science" I would be the very first to tell ya that "science can find much better speakers than me". Period back to ya.

I'm a teetotaler sort, I do not indulge, but thanks anyway, best wishes to ya too.


Please see also previous post over page.

What, no heckling from you when they came up with 'branes' and 'the bulk'? They were 'funnier' than some of the terminology I have seen from some others' new theories posted here! And you are saying you admire them for their 'funny' terminology while you deride Zephir et al for their terminology which you don't understand? Selective bias?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2012
I'd rather say, he's just a plain troll, who even cannot distinguish between individual posters here...;-)


Are ya denying that you are Zephyr? Or are ya denying that Yash17 is Zephyr? Yes, it is a trick question. One that I know you CAN'T answer. Do ya suppose that ya might be smart enough to attempt answer? (Yeah, that is a trick question too.)


is really getting tiresome to watch, Q-Star.


Then quit watching. Are ya the resident "Defender Of Crank Science"? Your efforts are wasted on me.... but feel free to try.

Please try to correct that unscientific attitude when it comes to discussing scientific theories


Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, and the Aether Wave Theory are not scientific theories,,, and haven't been for some many years. I'll discuss them any way I want,,,,

then STFU


Ya aren't very smart are ya?

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
Theories are any theoretical construct irrespective of provenance/acceptance. An ACCEPTED theory is the orthodox theory. Unaccepted theories are hypothetical until accepted theory. Anyway, the general usage of theory covers both accepted theory and hypotheses. Your continuing evasion of the point by raising personal/irrelevant/pedantic issues is telling of your insincerity. I can believe you when you say you are no spokesperson for science. Your approach to scientific discourse is too personal-ego based to be of any use to anyone, especially science.

I 'defend' proper and polite scientific discourse, and call out your kind of silliness as and when I come across it, for the sake of science. Make a new year resolution to be less personal/egotistical/dogmatic/petty. Maybe then you will be taken seriously. Good luck for the new year!
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2012
What, no heckling from you when they came up with 'branes' and 'the bulk'? They were 'funnier' than some of the terminology I have seen from some others' new theories posted here! And you are saying you admire them for their 'funny' terminology while you deride Zephir et al for their terminology which you don't understand? Selective bias?


No, I admire them for the work they put into their ponderings. And for the fact they don't present their work as FACT, they understand the scientific method, and what level of confidence to assign their work.

The people you are defending here, contradict their own "theories", mix up the realms they are "theorizing" about, and when it's pointed out to them, they go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what they started with. They often want to INSTRUCT on "general relativity", "quantum physics", "astrophysics" and "cosmology" and don't even understand 7th grade Earth Science or 9th grade algebra.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2012
I 'defend' proper and polite scientific discourse, and call out your kind of silliness as and when I come across it, for the sake of science.


Oh, well if ya think the way Zephyr/ValeriaT/Yash17, cantdrive, hannes alfvenn,, is "proper and polite" scientific anything,,,,,, I feel quit honored that ya find me silly. I'd hate to be grouped with them.

Theories are any theoretical construct irrespective of provenance/acceptance. An ACCEPTED theory is the orthodox theory. Unaccepted theories are hypothetical until accepted theory. Anyway, the general usage of theory covers both accepted theory and hypotheses.


If ya think that, ya should feel shame at trying to say ya are on the side of science.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
No, I admire them for the work they put into their ponderings. And for the fact they don't present their work as FACT, they understand the scientific method, and what level of confidence to assign their work.

The people you are defending here, contradict their own "theories", mix up the realms they are "theorizing" about, and when it's pointed out to them, they go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what they started with. They often want to INSTRUCT on "general relativity", "quantum physics", "astrophysics" and "cosmology" and don't even understand 7th grade Earth Science or 9th grade algebra.


Their 'work' was as speculative as any others' here. Yet they were taken seriously due to 'authority' rather than real testable logics/realities. So don't be 'elitist' because you never know where the next 'correct' speculative ponderings and WORK may come that makes things clearer than orthodoxy has made it so far. Did you 'parody' their funny terminology at the time?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
I 'defend' proper and polite scientific discourse, and call out your kind of silliness as and when I come across it, for the sake of science.


Oh, well if ya think the way Zephyr/ValeriaT/Yash17, cantdrive, hannes alfvenn,, is "proper and polite" scientific anything,,,,,, I feel quit honored that ya find me silly. I'd hate to be grouped with them.

Theories are any theoretical construct irrespective of provenance/acceptance. An ACCEPTED theory is the orthodox theory. Unaccepted theories are hypothetical until accepted theory. Anyway, the general usage of theory covers both accepted theory and hypotheses.


If ya think that, ya should feel shame at trying to say ya are on the side of science.


Haven't you figured out yet that it's a two-way street? They respond in kind to what has been meted out to them for some time now. Let both 'sides' stop the name-calling and start afresh for the sake of Old Lang Syne! Hey guys?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2012
Did you 'parody' their funny terminology at the time?


In fact, I did, and still do, right along with them. I am an educator, as are most of them,,,,, it's how we get along, and we do get along quite well. They know where "pondering" (which is still work) and "modeling" begin and end. They don't teach their pondering to their students under any other guise than just "ponderings" and scientific theories and science they teach as science.

Just by thinking something doesn't make a theory. Before it can become a theory, it must be compatible with all observed phenomena AND be tested,,,, if it isn't then it is pondering, not a theory.

Ya sound like one of those creationists who say "Evolution is just a theory." To us, those educated in science, that is one of the most absurd come-backs they throw at us.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
And did you include the side-order of personal insults too?

And you are speaking to an atheist from age nine to the present moment, so enough with the attempt to 'paint' me as someone who I am not.

And in general usage theory/hypothesis is interchangeable now. And Einstein's theory was as much a theory before being 'accepted' as it was afterwards, irrespective of whether it was called theory or hypothesis.

Less of the tactics/pedantics and more of the respect/politeness for sciences and humanity's sake, hey guys?....on BOTH 'sides'.

Take care, everyone....and for pity's sake, don't drink/drug and drive! Cheers...and then walk or get a lift!
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
And did you include the side-order of personal insults too?


No, but then none of the ones I've worked with are as stupid and silly as Zephyr/ValeriaT/Yash17 and cantdrive. If they were, then I certainly would have.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2012
Sounds great. But, shouldn't we first definatively rule out the possible existence of an aether?

The Unified Vorticii Theory (UVT) explains why aether hasn't yet been definatively ruled out, and how it may actually explain what dark matter and dark energy are.

But, it doesn't seem to be on the agenda quite just yet. We'll get there eventually.
radek
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
I am rooting for the Dark Matter == WIMP hypotheses to be disproven and leave them all scratching their heads. I'd love to see the LHC produce some pesky results that the make the Higgs discovery sufficiently different than predicted that the standard model falls apart.


latest ATLAS data suggest that there are two Higgs or rather Higgs-like particles.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
latest ATLAS data suggest that there are two Higgs or rather Higgs-like particles.


Two new particles at the expected energy of the Higgs throws a wrench into the standard model if there really are two such particles.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2012
And did you include the side-order of personal insults too?

No, but then none of the ones I've worked with are as stupid and silly as Zephyr/ValeriaT/Yash17 and cantdrive. If they were, then I certainly would have.
Maybe you think your 'string theory' work colleagues "weren't as silly" because you bothered to try and understand what they were trying to get across about their string theory hypotheses; while you don't extend that same courtesy to others here? Or are you telling me that you still thought they were "not as silly" even though you didn't understand anything they were saying? Maybe the problem is with your inability/unwillingness to hear others fairly before you spout your 'judgements' about 'silliness' or not because you have or have not 'worked with' someone? Science and polite courtesy and respect, not personal prejudice and ego-tripping name-dropping, should be your guides during scientific discourse.

Gotta go. Mightn't post for 3 days. Bye!
abledoc
1 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2012
What about some generation of neutrino as a dark matter candidate. Being Fermions and weakly interactimg, they will satisfy many requirements for dark matter
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2012
Science and polite courtesy and respect, not personal prejudice and ego-tripping name-dropping, should be your guides during scientific discourse.


First, it is somewhat conspicious that - in your many comments defending Zephyr (alias ValeriaT etc) - you never mentioned his unscientific habit to use several nicks.

Second, I fail to understand why you are talking of some scientific discourse where there is none.
There are anti-scientific attacks like those from the Creationist bunch.
And there is quite some pseudo-scientific noise generated by people who don't understand that the most fundamental difference between scientific and non-scientific knowledge is expressed in the concept of falsifiability.

You cannot have a scientific discourse with people who don't know to tell scientific from non-scientific knowledge.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
Oh, grow up children. If Zephyrs words don't interest you, don't read them. For Gods sake. Shoot! Did I just bring God up in the commenting section of a Scientific news website?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
you never mentioned his unscientific habit to use several nicks
I'm using two, because I got registered at two computers. Now I'm sitting at home and I'm using the single account whole week. Many people are using multiple accounts here too and I'm not even interested, if I'm considered a scientist. My person isn't important here at all.
Look, the last page of this thread is just a OT waste of space on this server generated with trolls, who have no better arguments than to attack the others and their posts. Could we return to dark matter subject, or do we want continue in an easy trolling about Zephir and similar sh*ts?
aroc91
not rated yet Dec 23, 2012
Cheery to ya too. Why can't I participate with my own ideas and theories? If you don't believe a non moving electron can emit energy in the form of a longitudinal flat water wave, then you are welcome to present an alternate theory. I think though, that you are overlooking the observation of the vacuum filled aether, which by the way, can be modeled quite intuitively by the transverse waves of luminous water moving with superduperluminary velocities


Hit the nail right on the head, Q-star
AntonKole
1 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2012
I'm still perplexed as to why we haven't yet performed a Michelson-Morley experiment in earth orbit in order to 'definatively rule out' aether as a possible explanation. Until that experiment is performed, all the past Michelson/Morley experiment 'interpretations' will continue to remain unsubstantiated.

Continuing to make the 'assumption' that aether is not being drawn into earth, will only be to our own detriment. I believe, the scientific community needs to finally complete the Michelson-Morley experimental set (on earth, and, in orbit), and either rule out, or rule in, the possible exitence of aether once and for all.
gwrede
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2012
The title picture of this article purports to show the "Bullet Cluster". Here is a link to the same picture at the Hubble site.

http://hubblesite...28/full/

The picture shows the center of our own galaxy.

I would consider this a profoundly embarrassing error, from either Kavli or PhysOrg. Sloppy work.

-------

What the second picture shows, is never explained.

It shows the center of the giant galaxy cluster Abell 1689, with an overlaid blue computer-generated "map" of dark matter, which was inferred by measuring how galaxies behind the cluster are distorted.

http://hubblesite...image/a/

Again, sloppy work.
gwrede
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Someone gave one star for my comment about the pictures. Very interesting sense of humor, I presume.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Easy, it was just lite, a local voting troll He's downvoting randomly..
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
[1]
Three easy and unmistakeable linguistic identifiers for Zephyr clones:
- spelling "bellow" instead of "below"
- use of "before" instead of "ago"
- using the pattern "both X both Y" instead of "both X and Y"

[2]
Zephyr speak translation service:
"I'm using two" means "at this very moment, I'm using only two out of my weekly growing number of accounts".
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2012
First, it is somewhat conspicious that - in your many comments defending Zephyr (alias ValeriaT etc) - you never mentioned his unscientific habit to use several nicks.

Second, I fail to understand why you are talking of some scientific discourse where there is none.
There are anti-scientific attacks like those from the Creationist bunch.
And there is quite some pseudo-scientific noise generated by people who don't understand that the most fundamental difference between scientific and non-scientific knowledge is expressed in the concept of falsifiability.

You cannot have a scientific discourse with people who don't know to tell scientific from non-scientific knowledge
I 'defend' courteous/fair discourse, not 'people'.

How would you/others know 'pseudo' from 'genuine' if you/others practice unhealthy and unscientific personal preoccupation with 'killing the messenger' without bothering to properly understand/discuss 'the message' BEFORE arriving at judgements n lieu? Bye!
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2012
[1]
Three easy and unmistakeable linguistic identifiers for Zephyr clones:
- spelling "bellow" instead of "below"
- use of "before" instead of "ago"
- using the pattern "both X both Y" instead of "both X and Y"

[2]
Zephyr speak translation service:
"I'm using two" means "at this very moment, I'm using only two out of my weekly growing number of accounts".

See? You continue your 'personal' fixation with the 'messengers' while not properly discussing the 'message' or just ignoring same if it's either beyond your comprehension or you just don't want to bother with trying to understand what the 'message' is irrespective of person/provenance. If you are only interested in 'social media' and 'characters' etc, then twitter/facebook etc will suit you better. Have a safe and happy holidays!
typicalguy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
Q-Star, I admire your enthusiasm and persistence but you should give up like everyone else. These people will post nonsense that they claim is true science. They won't provide math or experiments that could prove or disprove the theories. They will come out and complain that string theory is unverifiable year their theories don't need to be verified. Take their word for it, they're the smartest people on the planet endowed with the only true understanding of the universe. In fact, just stop all math and science now. After all, it's all an employment scheme as they already know everything and science and math (unlike them) is making things up. The math works out you say??? HAH! It's so complicated hey can't understand t and if they can't understand it in their pea brains then it can't be true.

In other words, just give up and let these numbskulls spam. I personally can't wait for some of them to die so I can stop skipping the drivel they type in he comments.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2012
All opponents of new ideas in human history knew instinctively, it's easier to fight with their authors than with these ideas itself. I even using this approach as an undeniable indicator of negativist trolls.
..just stop all math and science now...
The science is not just about math. You need to understand the subject at its intuitive level for being able to derive the math. In addition, in my experience most of people who are wisiting the public forums about physics don't care about math anyway. The people want to UNDERSTAND the physics, to to DERIVE the numeric regressions of it. As S. Howking once noted, each equation included in the book would halve the sales.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
I somewhat agree with typicalguy. It's amazing how many physicists out there actually believe that the aether debate has been resolved. I'm surprised by how many regularly make the 'assumption' that aether does not exist, based on 'preconceived' claims.

No experiment has yet been performed to confirm that aether is not being drawn into the earth! One would think that any scientist would want to confirm the non-existence of aether first, before exploring the 'more complicated' ideas which have thus far been proposed.

By simply doing a Michelson-Morley experiment in an earth orbit, we could finally confirm if aether exists or not. Instead, many scientists prefer to follow and study a variety of strange, and in some cases unprovable, ideas. Together through continual experimentation and exploration, we can unveil the Universes' 'true' secrets. I look forward to the day when the Michelson-Morley experiment is finally performed in an earth orbit. Regardless what results we will find.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
Einsteins special theory of relativity manages to work without an aether because Einstein envisions light to be, not a wave, but particles (photons).

Waves are the manifestation of a medium. Light cannot be a wave connecting two distant objects if no medium is present between them. It is like floating on water with a boat passing by, the information of the boats existence reaches you through the medium - the water. If the water wasn't there no waves would reach you (assuming a perfect vacuum between you).

So the information of a distant star cannot reach you in the form of waves unless a medium connects you.

But particles require no medium. So if light is made of particles, space can be empty between you and that distant star, the information is carried by a stream of particles, rather than the medium in the form of waves.

The problem is, real particles have mass, photons don't.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
Photons, therefore, must be virtual particles. They have neither positive nor negative mass. Virtual particles in field theory are field disturbances created between two (or more) interacting real particles.

A water wave is not a real thing. The wave is undulating water. So if light is a wave, it is not real but a result of the medium which supports its existence. Light cannot be a wave in any but an aether model.

Photons (particles) are the opposite. While no medium is required for propagation of particles, photons themselves aren't real particles. If photons are field disturbances, what exactly is being disturbed?

In either case, whether quanta of light are (virtual) particles or waves, a medium of sorts is required. Whether an aether or a field, or whatever label you choose, space must be a substance of sorts.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2012
Y'all are a much smarter, more educated bunch than me, so bear with me... If a particle (the word implying it has mass) doesn't need a medium to move (in a vacuum) then doesn't it's very motion then make that particle the medium?
(kinda the same thing that Kron just said....)
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012
You continue your 'personal' fixation with the 'messengers' while not properly discussing the 'message'

[1] You are wrong by using the plural "messengers".
[2] You are not properly discussing my message:
"There's no sense in talking with a clone operator, but it makes sense talking about a clone operator's behaviour."
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2012
I 'defend' courteous/fair discourse, not 'people'.

No. You defend unfair discourse practices by attesting "fair discourse" to a well-known clone operator.

How would you/others know 'pseudo' from 'genuine' if you/others practice unhealthy and unscientific personal preoccupation with 'killing the messenger' without bothering to properly understand/discuss 'the message' BEFORE arriving at judgements n lieu?

Do you understand my message about the importance of falsifiability?
Did you ever discuss my message about the need to get rid of clone operators?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2012
By simply doing a Michelson-Morley experiment in an earth orbit, we could finally confirm if aether exists or not. Instead, many scientists prefer to follow and study a variety of strange, and in some cases unprovable, ideas. Together through continual experimentation and exploration, we can unveil the Universes' 'true' secrets. I look forward to the day when the Michelson-Morley experiment is finally performed in an earth orbit. Regardless what results we will find.


It's done each and every day in earth orbit, in interplanetary orbits and soon in interstellar space,,,,,, The proper functioning and calibration of GPS satellites, programing the trajectories of spacecraft, analyzing the data returned from space,,,, all take into account that there is no aether. They are ongoing experiments, exactly like the Michelson-Morley experiment only under more extreme conditions with a millions of time the precision......

How's that for a Reality Check?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2012
If a particle (the word implying it has mass) doesn't need a medium to move (in a vacuum) then doesn't it's very motion then make that particle the medium
Yes, the particles are formed with motion of vacuum inside them (kinetic energy). They're formed with tension of vacuum too, though (potential energy), which just reflects the gradient of motion intensity within environment. So in this respect the reality is formed just with motion in less or more derived style - will it help you to derive something new? IMO it's just a void semantical game.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2012
A water wave is not a real thing. ..Photons (particles) are the opposite. While no medium is required for propagation of particles, photons themselves aren't real particles. ..
I'm not sure, what is real and what not and what is the opposite of which after then in your proclamations. Whereas I do support the aether model too, your line of thoughts seems very incoherent for me.
AntonKole
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2012
Sorry Q-Star, you're a little off the mark there. GPS measurements take into account 'Time Dilation'. This looks at "the actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses". Whilst 'Interferometry', which is used in performing the Michelson –Morley experiment, takes into account "the measurement of small displacements, refractive index changes and surface irregularities".

To an untrained individual, these two different measurements may appear to be the same. But in fact, they measure two completely different phenomena. No serious scientist would use one method, to measure the other. You may need to read some more.

"..all take into account that there is no aether." Not true. That's 'assuming' gravity and aether are not linked.

The only way to be 'absolutely' sure, would be to perform the 'correct' experiment and measurement. Without the assumptions!
Kron
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
A water wave is not a physical entity in and of itself. Without water, the water wave doesn't exist. The same applies to a light wave. Without a medium, there can be no wave. This is all I mean by not real. If everything is removed and all that is left is vast emptiness, a real entity CAN occupy this emptiness, while an entity that is not real CAN'T.

Virtual particles are the product of the interaction of real particles, so if all the real particles are removed and vast emptiness remains, can virtual particles occupy this empty space? No. Virtual particles do not exist without interaction of real particles. So virtual particles, due to their inability to exist in emptiness, are what I would classify, as NOT real particles.

Waves also cannot exist in vast emptiness. Waves are supported by a medium, so if the medium is removed do the waves remain? No. Waves are also not real physical entities in and of themselves, lose the substance, lose the wave.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
A water wave is not a physical entity in and of itself. Without water, the water wave doesn't exist
You couldn't exist without your mother as well. Does it mean, you're not a physical entity on itself too? That is to say, I've nothing against your line or aether reasoning, but your initial premises are rather easy to attack.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Dec 25, 2012
Sorry Q-Star, you're a little off the mark there. GPS measurements take into account 'Time Dilation'. Whilst 'Interferometry', which is used in performing the Michelson –Morley experiment, takes into account "the measurement of small displacements, refractive index changes and surface regularities".


I'm not off the mark at all,,,, this is stuff I have worked with for several decades. It is the techniques of interferometry which allow us to place space probes so accurately. Time dilation is only a small part of keeping GPS satellites on the same page,,, interferometry is the basis of them each knowing precisely where the others are.

To an untrained individual, these two different measurements may appear to be the same.


You mean like an amateur scientist who thinks that imagination is enough to develop The Theory of Everything?

You may need to read some more.


I have two advanced degrees, I'm employed by a major university, I think I have read enough.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2012
@Zephyr, et al,,,, I told ya that syntax thing was going to trip ya up if ya weren't careful,,, ya need to start paying attention to your several personae and keep them straight.

@RealityAntonCheckKole,,, it's advice ya should have heeded also, but it's a little late for that now.

So people are so smart that they can't see how stupid they really are,,, carry on children, ya got me fooled.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
who thinks that imagination is enough to develop The Theory of Everything
Maybe it's not enough, but it's a necessary condition.
So people are so smart that they can't see how stupid they really are
You're so smart, how you can see it all...;-) Sorry, there is no other way, how to criticize the people for pretending smartness, than to start with such a pretense too. That is to say, you're stupid fool, who is systematically oriented to attacking of peoples instead of their arguments, as reality_check already noted many times. This thread is not Facebook or some other social club.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2012
who thinks that imagination is enough to develop The Theory of Everything
Maybe it's not enough, but it's a necessary condition.


Only if a person's imagination is constrained by what is possible. And only if their imagination doesn't get in the way of all the phenomena observed that runs counter to what they are imagining. Some people take imagination to a pathological level,,, then ya call it a delusion.

I can imagine a pink unicorn with foot long ears,,, should I spend a lot of time trying to convince someone it real?
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2012
Sorry, there is no other way, how to criticize the people for pretending smartness, than to start with such a pretense too.


I criticize them(actually YOU) for "pretending" to be several different people. But why should ya care,,, this forum and others are only a game to ya. Ya like to reel people into foolish tit-for-tat and see how long ya can keep it going. Ya should be glad that someone like me is willing to play with ya. (And as an added bonus, ya might learn something while we play.)

That is to say, you're stupid fool, who is systematically oriented to attacking of peoples instead of their arguments, as reality_check already noted many times. This thread is not Facebook or some other social club.


Why are ya the only allowed to play here? Am I not allowed because I'm somewhat better at it than Zephyr/ValeriaT/Yash17/Kron/RealityCheck/AntonKole? Your game is exposed, if ya want to keep playing, ya'll just have to accept me as a playmate.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
Only if a person's imagination is constrained by what is possible.
You can judge it responsibly only if you have even bigger imagination. For example, it requires a bit of imagination to propose, that the Earth is revolving around Sun, not vice-versa. But to approve it realistically, you should imagine even wider scope, where such a solar systems are actually quite common. Without it your opinion will remain just a word against word.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
You couldn't exist without your mother as well. Does it mean, you're not a physical entity on itself too?

I see what you're getting at.

After a photon is created (the field is disturbed) by real particles, is the photon real? I'd say the disturbance remains until it is absorbed by another real particle. A photon in a field without real particles would forever remain, as nothing would be there to absorb it.

But, this is not what I asked. I asked: could a photon exist in the absence of everything? By this I meant absolutely everything, can a photon exist in the absence of a field? Without a field there can be no field disturbance, so no photon.

So what you are asking is could I exist should my mother suddenly disappear? The answer is yes.

But an anology for what i asked is: could I exist if my mother never did? The answer to this one is a no.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
Only if a person's imagination is constrained by what is possible.
You can judge it responsibly only if you have even bigger imagination. For example, it requires a bit of imagination to propose, that the Earth is revolving around Sun, not vice-versa. But to approve it realistically, you should imagine even wider scope, where such a solar systems are actually quite common. Without it your opinion will remain just a word against word.
I criticize them(actually YOU) for "pretending" to be several different people
I don't pretend anything. My only other live account at PO is natello, which I didn't use whole week, simply because I'm sitting home over Christmas. If you would follow only the content of posts instead of their authors, such a problem could never happen. Just the people who are oriented to social clubs like the Facebook and judging of people instead of their ideas are so disconcerted with multiple accounts.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 25, 2012
Without it your opinion will remain just a word against word.


Well then,,, I'm doing okay, there are many, very great minds who agree with my opinion,,, and a few internet crack pots who don't. Hmmm, yeppers, I feel like I'm on the right track.

But Zephyr et al,,,, please feel free to continue the thread, ya can even have the last word for today, I must go and do something productive (the wife is a devil like that sometimes.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
After a photon is created (the field is disturbed) by real particles, is the photon real?
IMO yes because such a photon propagates like isolated entity, which can hit the scintillator in a single point like the particle. Actually the particles which disturbed the vacuum are losing a bit of their internal (momentum of) motion during it and they transfer their mass into photons. They do transfer their realness into photon, so to say.
In AWT every photon is not just a wave, it propagates like the less or more dense piece of vacuum foam, which gets more dense during shaking in similar way, like the soap foam - just in way faster and more reversible way. So I can even imagine the way, in which photon is behaving like real particle. It has more dense core and it has center of mass like every massive particle - because it is really massive, albeit in very infinitesimal extent.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
I must go and do something productive
Just after sending of this post my last ten posts in this thread were downvoted with lite account suddenly in a single moment. Is this a coincidence - or you can simply cannot handle a double session with your browser?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2012
Only if a person's imagination is constrained by what is possible.


I see a bit of a conundrum here, in that we live in an Universe of infinite possibility.(an observation)

And only if their imagination doesn't get in the way of all the phenomena observed that runs counter to what they are imagining.


Observed - so far... Inferring that the observer has extrapolated (imagined)an exact outcome with what he/she/it assumes are enough variables to establish that extrapolation.
In this way, they have "constrained" themselves with probabilities, not possibilities.
The only real observation that can be ABSOLUTELY made is -
s**t happens...
sirchick
3 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2012
Dark matter consist of cold dark matter, which has a properties of "field" and so-called hot dark matter, composed of tiny particles. IMO the cold dark matter is formed with shielding of gravitational shielding of massive bodies with nearby massive bodies, this is why its arranged into lines.


This applies to everyone:

Lets stick to facts not opinions because it does not help anything. Unless you're able to test your opinions/hypothesis...don't bother shouting them out cos it just leasts to stupid arguements... this entire comments thread is hijacked by squabbles... when it could of been an intellectual debate.

This site is really losing its maturity feel these days. The moderators do nothing also.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
,, this is stuff I have worked with for several decades.

I have two advanced degrees, I'm employed by a major university, I think I have read enough.

WOW! Amazing! Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Well Q-Star! You should then KNOW better than to make 'unsubstantiated' claims.

@RealityAntonCheckKole

Now, you're getting me mixed up with other people. If this is the 'quality of your work', then that doesn't give me great confidence in your so called 'qualifications' and 'experience' then.

On a separate general note. I'm really curious as to why so many people appear to be so afraid to see experiments done in order to confirm past 'unsubstantiated' claims!? Costs shouldn't be an excuse. We spend billions of dollars on other experiments worldwide. One would think that people would want to tie up the 'loose ends' before moving onto 'other' possibilities. Is it fear, ignorance, or just plain arrogance!? It really does make me wonder sometimes.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
Unless you're able to test your opinions/hypothesis
This model was already tested during solar eclipses, when it manifest itself as so-called Allais effect with various gravitational anomalies. It's actually quite simple: the balance of matter and energy in vacuum is maintained with dynamic equilibrium of transverse and longitudinal waves. At the higher density these waves are forming particle solitons, i.e. the photons and neutrinos. The longitudinal wave shadow of massive objects is known as a gravity field (remember the LeSage theory), the photon shadow manifest with Cassimir force. But the longitudinal wave shadow can be shielded with another massive bodies - under such a circumstances the density of longitudinal waves becomes so high, these waves condense into neutrinos. Which is the reason, why these neutrinos emerge during planetary conjunctions.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
In every particle environment it's quite normal, the energy is mediated both trough longitudinal, both via transverse waves equally. The longitudinal waves are all around us and they do manifest itself with notoriously known CMBR noise. The ignorance of aether model just prohibits the mainstream physicists to realize these simple connections.

IMO the simplest experimental evidence (in addition to gravitometric measurements) would be the observation of the CMBR noise intensity during solar eclipses. Also, the intensity of this noise should increase during full Moon period at the connection line of Moon. I presume, the human brain is somewhat sensitive to it, as this noise makes human psychic unstable, which can serve as the rational explanation of various psychic phenomena connected with lunar phases. The people should simply take the longitudinal (scalar) wave physics more seriously, as the light waves aren't everything which flies around us.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
Another evidence would be the measurement of dark matter geometry. The above model predicts, that the dark matter gets concentrated along connection lines of all massive bodies, where the longitudinal waves of environment are getting shielded most effectively. Therefore the dark matter fibers should be the more intensive, the more galaxies sits along single line in the universe and the more massive these galaxies are. I presume, the statistical analysis of dark matter fibers across the sky would reveal, whether this model works or not.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
The recent observations revealed, that the neutrinos strongly affect the speed of radioactive decay of atom nuclei, in particular the processes mediated with weak force interaction. Because in AWT the neutrinos are solitons of gravitational / scalar waves, the changes in radioactive decay speed should manifest at the connection lines during solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions too. The scalar waves can be prepared in common electromagnetic circuits similar to Tesla transformers (they can be separated from light wave with common shielding, as they do penetrate it). In addition, the low energy neutrinos and scalar waves should be reflected/shielded with Dirac electrons within graphene and superconductors - so there is a wide field opened for experimentation. Because the physics of longitudinal waves is dual to transverse wave physics, we can literally say, whole half of physics is still waiting for its revelation.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
It's done each and every day in earth orbit, in interplanetary orbits and soon in interstellar space….. exactly like the Michelson-Morley experiment only under more extreme conditions with a millions of time the precision.

It is the techniques of interferometry which allow us to place space probes so accurately.….interferometry is the basis of them each knowing precisely where the others are.

Yes your right. Interferometry is used as you've said. But, the interferometry methods used to perform these tasks you have mentioned are NOT 'EXACTLY LIKE' the Mickelson-Morley experiment.

Far from it. The Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment is a VERY different experiment altogether, designed to measure, 'in a closed system', if an aether medium is passing 'through it'. The interferometry methods used above are NOT designed to measure that same effect. And, to my knowledge, the Michelson-Morley experiment (or an equivalent) has never been performed in an earth orbit.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
Michelson-Morley experiment (or an equivalent) has never been performed in an earth orbit.
The Gravity Probe B spaceprobe attempted to detect the aether drag (Lense-Thirring effect). Its results weren't conclusive, because it suffered with various electrostatic disturbances and possibly the flyby anomalies.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2012
the interferometry methods used to perform these tasks you have mentioned are NOT 'EXACTLY LIKE' the Mickelson-Morley experiment.


They are exactly the Michelson-Morley experiment, the only difference is that they are practical,,, sometimes the objects are going in the near side sun, and at other time the far side,,,, the technique of interferometry is used to correct the exact locations,,, it proves that there is no "aether".

The Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment is a VERY different experiment altogether, designed to measure, 'in a closed system', if an aether medium is passing 'through it'. The interferometry methods used above are NOT designed to measure that same effect. And, to my knowledge, the Michelson-Morley experiment (or an equivalent) has never been performed in an earth orbit.


And "to your knowledge" you either don't know the Michelson-Morley experiment, or how interferometry is used in this wondrous 21st century.

We've come a long way since M-M.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2012
Just after sending of this post my last ten posts in this thread were downvoted with http://phys.org/p...ser/lite suddenly in a single moment. Is this a coincidence - or you can simply cannot handle a double session with your browser?


Couldn't be possible that multiple people could possibly know ya to be a moron. Eh, Zephyr?

Pssst, ya are still having trouble keeping the syntax correct, and now everyone knows what to look for. Ya are truly a mentally unfortunate man.

But to help ya somewhat,,, I have one active account,,, this one. I had another from some time ago,,, but let the log-in password/username get forgotten,,,, So Mr. Zephyr/Anton/Reality/Kron/Yash et al,,, put that in yer pipe and smirk it.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
Couldn't be possible that multiple people could possibly know ya to be a moron
No other user is so obsessed with it here, just you - in the same way, like the "lite account". It's another indicia, don't you think? Keep the subject, which is dark matter - not your permanent asocial problems with another posters here.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2012
not your permanent asocial problems with another posters here.


I think ya meant antisocial. An asocial person would not be willing to play your games with ya.
yash17
1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
"An imaginary friend? A pretend friend? Or are you agreeing with a reflection in the mirror?"

So a man with grasps a very true truth of the structure of the real one Universe which harmonizes with pure Newtonian is real enemy (imaginary friend) with current community with grasp the science fiction of "The Big Bang theory & its space expanding concept?

Oh man. At least I am still lucky, leaving at current era.
Can't imagine if I leaving at the era Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno.

Anyhow, I am very much confident that the think that I express (Cloud & rain model) is really the very true truth of the real one Universe structure.

And I surely believe, if the case that I expressing is stating by a famous professor, all of you now will soon be like soldiers follow the command.

If I have no strong points of the concept I grasp, you will not necessarily consider me as an enemy. It is enough you assume me as a very stupid guy.

Now, Happy New Year.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
you either don't know the Michelson-Morley experiment.. We've come a long way since M-M.
The M-M could work in aether if only the light would be mediated with longitudinal waves. Which apparently isn't. The motion of transverse waves is never ever affected with motion of their environment - not just at the case of vacuum/aether, but at the case of any other material environment. If you can observe some residual drag, then it just means, that these waves aren't fully transverse. So that the negative result of M-M experiment cannot serve as a conclusive absence of aether. Because nobody pointed it out from the times of M-M experiment, I don't think, we really made a progress in detection of aether from this time. We just got stuck in one hundred years standing misunderstanding of trivial Victorian physics, which is transfered from generation to generation with people, who just parrote it mindlessly and who refuse to think about it in independent way.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2012
The emergent perspective of human observer in 4D space-time can be modeled with observation of 3D water surface with observer siting on it. Because physics is obsessed with finding of formal deterministic description of reality, it naturally converged into two schematic perspectives, in which the spreading of waves at the water surface can be described. The intrinsic relativist perspective neglects the (motion/reference frame of) underwater at all and it considers the surface ripples as purely transverse waves. The second extrinsic perspective of quantum mechanics is oriented toward small scales and it deals with indeterministic Brownian noise. It considers the surface waves as a ripples of environment, the mass density of which is always proportional to energy density of wave in every time/space interval. This is basically, what the Schroedinger equation of quantum mechanics is. So that all complex phenomena at the water surface were reduced into two schematic perspectives.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2012
The connecting point of these perspectives is the mass-energy equivalence, because in general relativity every deform of space-time is considered as a manifestation of mass and the energy density of this deform is proportional to density of mass, which caused this curvature. Another common point is the invariance of speed of light, which can be derived both from quantum mechanic model of deBroglie wave as a theorem, both it serves as a postulate in special relativity. The third connection point is the concept of 4D space-time (Minkowski space-time and nested Hilbert space of quantum mechanics).

These two theories have otherwise nothing in common, because they do representing two dual perspectives of emergent observable reality: a four-dimensional slices of multiverse in hyperdimensional reality. Some theorists are often talking about parallel universes in the multiverse, while they didn't realize, they actually invented these universes in the form of dimensionally-limited theories.
yash17
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2012
"I am of the same generation of string theorists,,,, I admire them greatly,,, mostly for the effort they exerted prior to becoming string theorists. They are making progress."

This is your clear declaration that you are a real follower.

You deny being a thinker.

Good luck, then.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2012
The mutual inconsistency of general relativity and quantum mechanics can be demonstrated with their common predictions, which differ in many orders of magnitude (the so-called vacuum catastrophe). This discrepancy exists because general relativity predicts, all massive objects should collapse into singularity, whereas quantum mechanics predicts, all objects should expand into infinity. These two theories can therefore never be deterministically reconciled with mutual combination of equations in their present state. But they could be reconciled with their reformulation in sufficient number of extradimensions. Some theorems are becoming equivalent in just five dimensions (AdS/CFT correspondence). The introduction of another six dimensions would make these theories renormalizable with E8 gauge groups, which can describe particle world. But full consistency could be achieved just with introduction of very high number of dimensions.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2012
The introduction of extradimensions works, because with increasing number of extradimensions all hyperdimensional objects (manifolds) will converge to the same unparticle geometry similar to clouds or Perlin noise, when they would penetrate our low-dimensional space - no matter about their actual shape. So that despite the relativity and quantum mechanics have different predictions in 4D space-time, their sufficiently high-dimensional formulation would lead into sufficiently similar theorems (under lost of determinism and predictability at the price). Their solutions will simply appear similar, because they would appear similarly blurred and fuzzy.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2012
The understanding of hyperdimensionality of real-life objects is not so difficult, if you imagine our space-time like the water surface, into which the higher-dimensional object is embedded. What we would see from such an object is just the system of mutually separated particles, which are held together with low-distance forces - which is exactly what we can see all around us.
yash17
1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2012
Back to main topic?
Let's go.

"Dark matter."

Dark matter is small particles of compressed atom structure matters. It is a high pressure & temperature matters. Like black holes it doesn't emit light. It doesn't interact with electromagnetism and light.
Dark matter fills the cosmos as cosmic atmosphere. In cosmos it fleets with extremely high speed. It pushes galaxies away from Universe center, so we watch many sky objects low redshift. It is the other cases for high redshift sky objects (found around after the year 1998).
A lot number of dark matters intrude galaxies every split second. Some of those convert into CMBR, whilst the major amounts become sources of clouds of star performing in galaxies.

That's about dark matter I expect and that's why I like brt's comment earlier at this article.

If in around 50 years in the future we find dark matter isn't as above, Qstar and Big Bang theory community can raise their flag. Today, let's start to bet.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2012

That's about dark matter I expect and that's why I like brt's comment earlier at this article.

If in around 50 years in the future we find dark matter isn't as above, Qstar and Big Bang theory community can raise their flag. Today, let's start to bet.


Zephyr, the aether flag of surrender was raised more than a century ago. We have come along way in the last 100 years. I bet that in 50, no make that 10 years we will know what dark matter is. And I'm also willing to bet that in 50 years we will still know there is no aether.

By the By: Can we make a side bet that in 50 years you'll still be nattering on about water flat surface waves in the longitudinal murphy space at twice the superluminal velocity of the aether?
yash17
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
I am talking dark matter as it is as a title of this article. I never talked aether before. You talked that; I abstained about aether.
jasmine_bergem
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2013
If multiple universe theory is correct, what holds them apart? dark energy could be the substance that seperates us from the others outside of space-time, keeping the multiverse from acting in constant chaos. It could possibly be leaking into our universe. Also if we know that this invisible energy causes expansion, it might have caused the Big Bang to occur. We understand that empty space isnt empty. Say that the Casimir Effect took place inbetween two universes, causing a slip between the two membranes. With the theory that states that the membrane of our Universe contains information, this slip could have caused the Big Bang allowing the information and dark energy to escape into our Universe
AntonKole
1 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2013
It appears Q-Star was wrong, yet again.
I asked the following question on NASAs website, 'Ask an Astrophysicist'.

"Dear Madam/Sir,

I understand that some satellites have used, or currently use, interferometry for some of their functions, though, has THE ACTUAL Michelson-Morley experiment ever been performed in space?

Kind Regards,
Anton Kole
Tasmania, Australia."

In short (there was more in the full email response I received), the answer I got back was:

"No, to my knowledge this has not been done." Jay Cummings.

I'd trust someone from a known and reputable source, to that of someone hiding behind anonymity, any day.

My statement therefore remains. Based on the UVT model, and the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment has NOT yet been performed in space, I believe the continually 'assumed claim' of the non-existence of aether, is therefore unsubstantiated, and inconclusive. Someday, we may know for sure.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2013
We cannot use the M-M experiment for detection of aether at the moment, when the light is spreading in transverse waves through it, because - and this is very important to realize - NO transverse wave in ANY particle environment is dragged with (reference frame of) this environment. And we know, that the light is formed with transverse waves from the very beginning of Maxwell's theory (which is ather based, btw).

Therefore the asking for positive replication of M-M experiment in space is nonsensical and it just documents the misunderstanding of luminiferous aether model. The luminiferous aether DOESN'T pervades the space like some thin sparse gas - it FORMS the space instead. Every positive result of M-M experiment would be therefore an evidence of aether's failure to form the space instead. We can have evidence of positive violation of M-M experiment for CMBR photons only (Doppler anisotropy of CMBR) - not massive objects.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2013
"Dear Madam/Sir,

I understand that some satellites have used, or currently use, interferometry for some of their functions, though, has THE ACTUAL Michelson-Morley experiment ever been performed in space?

Kind Regards,
Anton Kole
Tasmania, Australia."

In short (there was more in the full email response I received), the answer I got back was:

"No, to my knowledge this has not been done." Jay Cummings.

Based on the UVT model, and the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment has NOT yet been performed in space, I believe the continually 'assumed claim' of the non-existence of aether, is therefore unsubstantiated, and inconclusive.


He probably was blowing ya off because ya asked "has THE ACTUAL Michelson-Morley experiment ever been performed in space?" & assumed ya were not very deeply informed.

Did ya happen to mention aether or a vortex? They get hundreds of crackpot and crank emails every day. (Will ya just choose a character & stick with it for at least one day?)
AntonKole
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2013
He probably was blowing ya off because ya asked "has THE ACTUAL Michelson-Morley experiment ever been performed in space?" & assumed ya were not very deeply informed.

Did ya happen to mention aether or a vortex? They get hundreds of crackpot and crank emails every day. (Will ya just choose a character & stick with it for at least one day?)

I guess this was exactly the 'type' of response I was expecting from an 'anonymous' individual. No apology for making the 'false claim'. Of course not. Instead,…more vitriol aspersions.

Hopefully, one day the experiment will be done. THEN, from the DATA and EVIDENCE obtained, can we truly develop a better understanding of the space around us.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2013
I guess this was exactly the 'type' of response I was expecting from an 'anonymous' individual. No apology for making the 'false claim'. Of course not. Instead,…more vitriol aspersions.

Hopefully, one day the experiment will be done. THEN, from the DATA and EVIDENCE obtained, can we truly develop a better understanding of the space around us.


What false claim should I apologize for? That there is no aether? I'm sticking to that one.

That interferometry is used all the time in the VACUUM of space? I'm sticking to that one also.

That anyone at NASA would consider ya a CRANK and CRACKPOT for suggesting that science would be advanced by wasting money to repeat a 150 year old experiment in space (when the same process is being done every day)??? I'm sticking to that one too.

There is no aether, & there is no Unified Vortex Theory model?? I'm sticking with that one too.

That amateur scientists plying the internet with no background are cranks??? I'll stick with that too.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2013
Hopefully, one day the experiment will be done. THEN, from the DATA and EVIDENCE obtained, can we truly develop a better understanding of the space around us.


That's like suggesting the science of zoology can be advanced by an in-depth investigation of blue unicorns. I for one think we need to "develop a better understanding of the" blue unicorns around us. They are at least as worthy of studying as the aether that is NOT around us. Don't ya think?
AntonKole
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2013
It's done each and every day in earth orbit...They are...exactly like the Michelson-Morley experiment...
Q-Star.
"...this has not been done."
Jay Cummings.

Which part do you have trouble understanding??
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2013
It's done each and every day in earth orbit...They are...exactly like the Michelson-Morley experiment...
Q-Star.
"...this has not been done."
Jay Cummings.

Which part do you have trouble understanding??


The part I have trouble understanding is that ya think that you even know what the Michelson-Morley was all about. Do ya have the slightest idea what it was set-up to determine?

It was an experiment to measure the consequences on the speed of light through the "aether" as it relates to the direction of the light source to direction of the earth through the so-called "aether". It was found that the direction had no effect on the speed of light.

In the last 150 years the speed of light has been measured thousands of times, from earth, in space, through space, in every conceivable direction. By dozens of methods (including interferometry) and found to be invariant, except when traveling through a medium such as water, glass or air. There is no aether.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 17, 2013
It's done each and every day in earth orbit...They are...exactly like the Michelson-Morley experiment...
Q-Star.
"...this has not been done."
Jay Cummings.

Which part do you have trouble understanding??


Okay Mr. "Amateur Scientist",,, you tell me. If NASA was so foolish as to fund your Michelson-Morley redux, in space, tell me how ya would set it up, and what ya expect the consequences of the experiment would be?

The numbers, Sir. What will ya measure? And what will ya learn?

I suspect ya haven't a clue, and won't be able to even answer my simple question, much less actually do any Michelson-Morley redux.
AntonKole
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2013
Aether may be being 'sucked' into the earth by approximately 9.81m/s^2. 'Gravity' may just therefore be the resulting action of aether being sucked into particles/atoms. If aether was being 'sucked' into earth, it would also create a continuous aether 'bubble' around the earth, hence, explaining the negative results that were measured in past 'stationary' Michelson-Morley experiments.

By doing the same Michelson-Morley experiment in an earth orbit, travelling around the earth at approximately 27,700km/h and 'cutting across' the hypothesised aether medium which is being 'sucked' into the earth, a result can be measured. If the results measured are the same as those that had been measured in the past, then aether can 'definitively' be ruled out. But, if we were to get 'positive' results, then it would 'strongly suggest' that an aether medium does in fact exist, and, that it is also being 'sucked' into the earth as well. Either way, the aether debate can be resolved once and for all.
Whydening Gyre
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2013
Zephyr, the aether flag of surrender was raised more than a century ago. We have come along way in the last 100 years. I bet that in 50, no make that 10 years we will know what dark matter is. And I'm also willing to bet that in 50 years we will still know there is no aether.

Will be funny to find that dark matter IS (better; viewed as) aether...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2013
In the last 150 years the speed of light has been measured thousands of times, from earth, in space, through space, in every conceivable direction... and found to be invariant..
It's just matter of the observational perspective. For example, the path of light is curved during passing through gravitational lenses in similar way, like during passing through glass lenses (it's even used in similar way for observation of very distant objects). So it's evident, inside the gravity lens the light is moving more slowly in comparison to the speed of light outside of it - so it's speed cannot be fully invariant. BTW If the light speed would be really invariant consequentially, then the Universe would become transparent, not only because of lack of gravitational lensing, but because inside of elementary particle most of space is formed just with empty vacuum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2013
Will be funny to find that dark matter IS (better; viewed as) aether
Dark matter doesn't serve as a medium for light spreading, so it cannot be a luminiferous aether.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2013
Aether may be being 'sucked' into the earth by approximately 9.81m/s^2. 'Gravity' may just therefore be the resulting action of aether being sucked into particles/atoms. If aether was being 'sucked' into earth, it would also create a continuous aether 'bubble' around the earth, hence, explaining the negative results that were measured in past 'stationary' Michelson-Morley


The M-M experiment, measured the speed of light, as it relates to the earth's rotational and orbital orientation. We have satellites all through out space that are depending on "speed of light" transmissions to communicate, with each other, and with earth. There transmissions aren't being "sucked" in by gravity. There is NO science in what you propose,,,,, it's already being done on a daily basis.

I ask again,,, What do you propose to measure in your M-M experiment in "space"? What new element to propose to add to what is already being done hundreds of times a day?

There is no aether to be sucked in.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2013
Will be funny to find that dark matter IS (better; viewed as) aether...


Dark aether? Or dark matter?

Well from observations we know it has mass. That's one for the "matter" column.

It clumps together due to gravity. That's two for the "matter" column.

It doesn't interact through the EM force. That's three for the "matter" column.

It works well with all known physics. That's four for the "matter" column.

Let's see where "aether" gets us when we consider it, shall we?

It's there and need not be detectable, by any observation. No mathematical model or equations apply to it. It doesn't exist with known physics. It has the ability to act in one way here, and another way there and can adjust itself to be applied to any answer from any any experiment. YEPPERS, The evidence for "aether" is overwhelming.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2013
What do you propose to measure in your M-M experiment in "space"?
A POTENTIAL aether flow INTO the earth. If there is none,…there SHOULD BE a null result.

What new element to propose to add to what is already being done hundreds of times a day?
A Michelson-Morley experiment!?

"...this has not been done."
Jay Cummings.

There is no aether….
Still inconclusive, and unconfirmed. Someday, we may know for sure.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2013
What do you propose to measure in your M-M experiment in "space"?
A POTENTIAL aether flow INTO the earth. If there is none,…there SHOULD BE a null result.


What do you propose to measure? A "POTENTIAL aether flow" is your answer. What will you measure it with? A "POTENTIAL aether" meter? What method will you use to measure this "POTENTIAL aether" flow????? Before you come back with the "M-M experiment", that was a measure of the speed of light. That is already being done, and has been done thousands of time in space, through space and in every conceivable direction. What NEW thing will you do?

What new element to propose to add to what is already being done hundreds of times a day?
A Michelson-Morley experiment!?


You obviously love the sound of the words "Michelson-Morley experiment", but you don't seem to know what it was, or what it was measuring.

Present a model, not jargon (which you use incorrectly.) You look like a buffoon (or a child.)
AntonKole
1 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2013
"M-M experiment", that was a measure of the speed of light…That is already being done, and has been done thousands of time in space...
The Michelson-Morley experiment was NOT designed just as a simple 'measure of the SPEED of light', as you have put it. It's actually a little more complicated than that.
Are you aware that the M-M experiment was also a ROTATING experiment? (aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf ). I'm not aware of any satellites being, or have ever been, physically locked together, and then ROTATED 360 degrees is space. Can you please give a link to this being done?

…but you don't seem to know what it was, or what it was measuring…You look like a buffoon (or a child.)
A Michelson-Morley experiment in space,
"...has not been done."
Jay Cummings.

Are you therefore suggesting that Mr Jay Cummings, also looks like a "buffoon (or a child)"?

It appears as if 'YOU don't seem to know what it was, or what it is measuring'.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2013
What do you propose to measure in your M-M experiment in "space"?
A POTENTIAL aether flow INTO the earth. If there is none,…there SHOULD BE a null result.


What is it you are going to measure. A simple question. Speed of light? Electromagnet potential? Gravitational pull of the Sun-Moon-Earth system? The number of pink unicorns on Mars? Surely you plan to measure some thing in your space bound M-M experiment? The number of Michelsons and Morleys on board the space station?

]q]Are you aware that the M-M experiment was also a ROTATING experiment? . I'm not aware of any satellites being, or have ever been, physically locked together, and then ROTATED 360 degrees is space.

Are you aware that there are hundreds of satellites in geosynchronous orbit? Are you aware that rotating something 360 degrees is the same thing as not rotating it at all?

Satellites rotate all the time, their guidance gyros do also, in every orientation. Again: GOT SOMETHING NEW???
lengould100
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2013
The endless trolling here has rendered this site useless for discussions.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2013
What is it you are going to measure. A simple question.

Potential interference fringe shifts, as the apparatus revolves about a given axis. Just as in a Michelson-Morley Experiment. Here is the experimental paper for you again, in case you missed it before ( aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf ). If you are still having trouble understanding the paper and the experiment, I recommend you start by reading some elementary physics books. There are many good books out there, that you can borrow from any good library. Good luck. :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
What is it you are going to measure. A simple question.

Potential interference fringe shifts, as the apparatus revolves about a given axis. Just as in a Michelson-Morley Experiment. Here is the experimental paper for you again, in case you missed it before ( aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf ). If you are still having trouble understanding the paper and the experiment, I recommend you start by reading some elementary physics books. There are many good books out there, that you can borrow from any good library. Good luck. :)


You have to be a six year old playing grown-up. That is the most nonsensical response I've read on here yet. You surpass Zephyr/Yashi/Valeria/natello in the area of gobbledygook.

You are not an amateur scientist, you're a six year old playing nutty professor.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2013
That is the most nonsensical response I've read on here yet.
It appears that you obviously have not read the paper then. I do understand that physics is a very difficult subject to understand.

But, as I have said before, if you are STILL having trouble understanding the paper, or the experiment, then I STRONGLY recommend that you start by reading some elementary physics books first then. There are many good books out there, that you can borrow from any good library. Good luck. :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
But, as I have said before, if you are STILL having trouble understanding the paper, or the experiment, then I STRONGLY recommend that you start by reading some elementary physics books first then. There are many good books out there, that you can borrow from any good library.


From someone who knew anything, that might be considered an insult. But since it comes from the clueless, I'll consider a badge of honor and a vote of confidence.

Carry on with your posturing,,,, a good place to start would responding to that call from NASA I read last week soliciting ideas for experiments to do on the ISS. Why don't ya write them and suggest doing the Michelson-Morley experiments in space. Don't leave out the part about looking for the aether, which has been neglected for the last one hundred plus years.

I'll just sit in the corner and be quiet now and let ya school me. Sorry I've interrupted such a renown amateur scientist as yourself. What's the next subject on the agenda?
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2013
good place to start would responding to that call from NASA I read last week soliciting ideas for experiments to do on the ISS. Why don't ya write them and suggest doing the Michelson-Morley experiments in space. Don't leave out the part about looking for the aether, which has been neglected for the last one hundred plus years.
Thanks for the suggestion.

What's the next subject on the agenda?
If you wish to keep up-to-date with my latest experimental work, you can do so on https://www.faceb...59787252 , and https://www.faceb...16958558 . Cheers.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
If you wish to keep up-to-date with my latest experimental work, you can do so on https://www.faceb...59787252 . Cheers.


I've kept up, when things get slow in the office we amuse ourselves with keeping up.

Dear Anton,

I've started reading the presentation on your New Theory and Model of Dark Energy and here are my inputs inserted into your text below:

"I am an amateur scientist (YG - there are scientists and there are not-scientists, so you have to chose between the two options 1-amateur and 2-scientist. The two do not work together), and believe I do not yet possess the experience and qualifications (YG- with this I completely agree) to be comfortable in preparing a formal paper ...


To be continued.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013

Continued: Anton discussing his "Theory" with YG,,,,,,

I have recently developed a Theory ... my Theory is both original (YG- there is normally one right theory, the rests are wrong, although each of them could be original indeed) and, above all (YG- above what all?), the correct solution (YG- How do you know, it is correct?) to the Dark Energy enigma.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2013
Oh yes, there is more. Continued: Anton imitating Zephyr.

Briefly, Dark Energy (DE) are the emissions produced as a waste product, from all atoms (YG- Well, it contradicts all the known postulates of modern science, so if you are right, then the rest of the scientific community is wrong, and the whole current scientific structure has to be dismantled immediately as being completely wrong and not representative. I strongly believe that the currently widely accepted scientific fundamentals are correct, so, thereby, I cannot accept your original scientific fundamentals and would prefer not to continue with the analysis of your Theory. Respectfully, Yehiel) ."
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
And more. Continued: Anton pretending that YG had nothing to say. The funniest part is that he is welcoming a forum member of many years to a forum he had just joined,,,,

"Not a prob Yehiel.

Welcome to the Forum :)"


Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
Here is a three plus year on going seminar conducted by Anton the TAET. In over three years, he left as stupid as the day he started the thread. The astute reader might notice that most of the "characters" in the "conversation" sound an awful lot like AntonKole/RealityCheck/Whydening Gyre/TassieMike/etc. You're correct, they are ALL one person. A source of great big fun for years,,,,, he has a large fan club at my office.

http://cs.astrono...219.aspx

Link to the conversation I posted below or above, depending on how you are set up.

http://cs.astrono...x#485318
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2013
Glad you've been keeping up.
SO, you must therefore also be aware of the numerous changes, alterations and clarifications which have been made over the years, from the initially proposed TADEET idea, to today's UVT model. And yes, the Hypothesis is in continual development, and, has evolved over time.

Using the scientific method, I do regular scientific work in my private lab. Therefore yes, you can refer to me as a 'Scientist' if you wish.

A few corrections for you though Q-Star. Yehiel had joined the Astronomy Forum only about 10 months ago. I had joined that particular forum over 3 and 1/2 years ago. It's only customary to welcome new comers to the forum. As many others have done for me on such occasions.

I am Anton Kole. I am not the other people as you continue to 'claim'. Do you not think that other people may also have similar interests and ideas on this planet, of over 7 billion people? Hard to believe, hey?! Do you also believe in the many, 'global conspiracies' too then??
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2013
I now know that my ideas are not at all 'original', as initially believed. Upon further researching, I've found that many others out there have had similar ideas over the years. Not everyone lives inside a box. Howz that for amazing!

I'm glad that I am able to supply your office with much amusement. I look forward to the day when we have finally, and incontrovertibly, confirmed if aether exists or not. Either, I will have to owe you (and many others) an apology, or, you me. :)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2013
Using the scientific method, I do regular scientific work in my private lab. Therefore yes, you can refer to me as a 'Scientist' if you wish.


Amateur Scientist, which I got from you.

So tell about this amateur scientific work you are doing in your private amateur lab. Using the amateur scientific method. I bet it is cutting edge. With new and unheard of approaches to all the previously resolved questions that any amateur scientist would know haven't really been resolved.

It's okay if ya tell me it is top secret and so far advanced that you can't tell us about it. It's enough to know that it is something, and it will earth shattering.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2013
I think we may be straying off the topic here a little bit now. If you want to continue a private conversation, feel free to PM me in one of the Facebook pages I'm linked to.
Cheers.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2013
I think we may be straying off the topic here a little bit now. If you want to continue a private conversation, feel free to PM me in one of the Facebook pages I'm linked to.
Cheers.


Oh, secret eh? I'm sorry to put ya on the spot like that.

Don't worry over much about getting off topic, ya haven't been on topic in this entire thread. (Unless ya somehow think that the aether stuff that was debunked a hundred years ago is somehow germane to closing in on dark matter.)
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
Not a real scientist or even an amatuer one. Artist with an interest in the unknowns that Science tells us are out there. Sure, I could maybe go back to University. BUt, at 60, I'd rather see if I can get a jump on the basicsa without all the side crap. Sure, sometimes intuitive guesses are wrong, but - who cares? Someone recently told me that we are all here just for entertainment/ diversion, anyway...

But, in the future, please refrain from lumping me with ANYONE but myself.